- - The original note follows - -
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 09:35:00 -0500
From: RFC822 mailer (LMail release 1.1d/1.7f) <MAILER@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of
the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that
allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect
addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes.
--> Error description:
Error-For: [email protected]
Error-Code: 1
Error-Text: Node PSUAV is unknown as of VERS9401. See below for a list of
suggested alternatives.
Error-End: One error reported.
------------------ Suggested BITNET nodes (source: VERS9401) ------------------
Nodeid Ctry Site description
------ ---- ----------------
APSU US Austin Peay State University Computer Services (VAX 8530)
CSULA US California State University - Los Angeles (Sun 3/260)
ESUVM US <No site information in the database>
JSUVM US Jackson State University Music System
KSUVM US Kansas State University Computing Center (IBM 3084)
LSUVM US Louisiana State University System Network Computer Center (IBM
3090-600J)
MSUPA US Michigan State University Physics Departmen (VAX 8650)
PSUACL US Pennsylvania State University Architecture Computer Laboratory
(VAX 11/750)
PSUALT US Pennsylvania State University Altoona Campus (VAX 8200)
PSUARL US Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory
(DEC/VAX 8350)
PSUCS US Pennsylvania State University COMPUTER SCIENCE (SUN 4/280)
PSUMVS US Penn State University CAC (IBM 3090-600S-VF)
PSUVM US Pennsylvania State University Center for Academic Computing (IBM
3090-600S-VF)
SUAIS US Syracuse University AIS (IBM ES/9000-320)
------------------------- Rejected message (96 lines) -------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:34 EST
From: "Howard Ray Lawrence 814 238 9535" <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Architecture and Virtual Reality
To: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, [email protected]
In-Reply-To: rick AT oscar.sod.ncsu.edu -- Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:09:33 EST
>> Obviously, if you are thinking in terms of APPLIED design rather
>> than BASIC design, there is likely to be a major limitation on
>> consideration of reality---as it exists today. However, although
>> if one thinks in terms of BASIC design within this new electronic
>> medium, the currently unbuildable may be considered free of these
>> existing constraints of today's reality. That could mean
>considerations
>> of energy as well as matter in the making of buildings. Therefore, I
>> have no problem with dematerializing the architectural
>conceptualization
>> As a matter of fact, it could lead to new and exciting technology!
>I am not sure what yuou mean by APPLIED versus BASIC design. My reading
?
|*NOT* applied.
>of their definition is the difference between practice and theory, where
? ?-Done in school.
|It's NOT done in school.
>the first is design for buildings sake, and the latter is design for
?
|Only building?
>designs sake. I agree that this technology is better applied toward the
?
|Building with VISUAL design concern of many themes that are universal
to the arts, including architecture. Themes like structure, movement,
systems, space, function, and light...
>latter, and that new and exciting developments will happen because
>of the ability to create and explore "constructed" digital spaces with
?
| Space as such
is only ONE
theme.
>the benefit of alternitive physics (ie no gravity, multiple or changing
>gravities, redefined materials, sky hooks, ultrastrong structures, etc.)
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If energy, then OK build energy. If matter, then OK build matter. If both,
then OK, build both together. BUT DO BUILD! WE LIVE IN A PLACE CALLED, EARTH!
Fantasy is not enough for the NEEDS of shelter for people. Eventually, some
of the work SHOULD lead to facilities that improve the lot of humanity. JUST
leaving it at the BASIC level is not enough. The BASIC level is most important
to SUGGEST possibilities of APPLICATION. WE are ALMOST looking at the differ-
ence between art and a PURELY art-driven architecture---that is NOT built.
As long as we know what we are considering, then OK. But do not tell me
art IS architecture, and architecture IS art. At best, the two are done
together. At lease, architecture is best done artfully.
>My argument still holds however that if you cannot create a space with a
>digital model that matches perceptually with the exact real space, then
>there is no way to tell if ANY digital space is what you believed it
>was. (From this argument there is a quick slide downhill into the
>rhetoric of what is truely real, so I am standing on somewhat shakey
>ground, but I hope you see my point.) I was mostly trying to show that
>there is still a long way to go before we can trust what we see in a HMD
>to be what we thought it was that we saw. This as opposed to the "real"
>world where we take for granted that what we see is actually what we saw.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
C'mon! The REAL world CAN be virtual reality. The REAL world CAN be
actual reality. Obviously, there MAY or MAY NOT be a connection between
them. That's OK. If MODELS in virtual reality are used to simulate
actual reality, then it's only a means to an end. Most models used
in design represent or provide a discrepancy between the IDEA coming
from a DESIGN PROCESS and the actual BUILDING of the idea. That is OK too.
>As for the application of this technology, if we assume a completely
>dematerialized architecture, then there will be no need to judge what we
>have seen since there will be no time at which it will be scrutinized in
>any form other than the digital form. The only headace comes when you
?
|Exactly! Right! Good!
>add a new HMD to the system which has different optics and drivers, and
>suddenly the digital space is different than before... Standards hell
>seems to be fast approaching...
>Thanks for the discussion, take care-
?
|No problem. I enjoyed it. Howard
>Rick
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard W. Zobel rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Virtual Environments Laboratory rwzobel@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>North Carolina State University
>School of Design
>Box 7701, Brooks Hall [voice] (919) 515-7341
>Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7701 [ FAX ] (919) 515-7330
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 09:35:00 -0500
From: RFC822 mailer (LMail release 1.1d/1.7f) <MAILER@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Undelivered mail
To: HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
An error was detected while processing the enclosed message. A list of
the affected recipients follows. This list is in a special format that
allows software like LISTSERV to automatically take action on incorrect
addresses; you can safely ignore the numeric codes.
--> Error description:
Error-For: [email protected]
Error-Code: 1
Error-Text: Node PSUAV is unknown as of VERS9401. See below for a list of
suggested alternatives.
Error-End: One error reported.
------------------ Suggested BITNET nodes (source: VERS9401) ------------------
Nodeid Ctry Site description
------ ---- ----------------
APSU US Austin Peay State University Computer Services (VAX 8530)
CSULA US California State University - Los Angeles (Sun 3/260)
ESUVM US <No site information in the database>
JSUVM US Jackson State University Music System
KSUVM US Kansas State University Computing Center (IBM 3084)
LSUVM US Louisiana State University System Network Computer Center (IBM
3090-600J)
MSUPA US Michigan State University Physics Departmen (VAX 8650)
PSUACL US Pennsylvania State University Architecture Computer Laboratory
(VAX 11/750)
PSUALT US Pennsylvania State University Altoona Campus (VAX 8200)
PSUARL US Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory
(DEC/VAX 8350)
PSUCS US Pennsylvania State University COMPUTER SCIENCE (SUN 4/280)
PSUMVS US Penn State University CAC (IBM 3090-600S-VF)
PSUVM US Pennsylvania State University Center for Academic Computing (IBM
3090-600S-VF)
SUAIS US Syracuse University AIS (IBM ES/9000-320)
------------------------- Rejected message (96 lines) -------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 09:34 EST
From: "Howard Ray Lawrence 814 238 9535" <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Architecture and Virtual Reality
To: rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, [email protected]
In-Reply-To: rick AT oscar.sod.ncsu.edu -- Mon, 24 Jan 94 09:09:33 EST
>> Obviously, if you are thinking in terms of APPLIED design rather
>> than BASIC design, there is likely to be a major limitation on
>> consideration of reality---as it exists today. However, although
>> if one thinks in terms of BASIC design within this new electronic
>> medium, the currently unbuildable may be considered free of these
>> existing constraints of today's reality. That could mean
>considerations
>> of energy as well as matter in the making of buildings. Therefore, I
>> have no problem with dematerializing the architectural
>conceptualization
>> As a matter of fact, it could lead to new and exciting technology!
>I am not sure what yuou mean by APPLIED versus BASIC design. My reading
?
|*NOT* applied.
>of their definition is the difference between practice and theory, where
? ?-Done in school.
|It's NOT done in school.
>the first is design for buildings sake, and the latter is design for
?
|Only building?
>designs sake. I agree that this technology is better applied toward the
?
|Building with VISUAL design concern of many themes that are universal
to the arts, including architecture. Themes like structure, movement,
systems, space, function, and light...
>latter, and that new and exciting developments will happen because
>of the ability to create and explore "constructed" digital spaces with
?
| Space as such
is only ONE
theme.
>the benefit of alternitive physics (ie no gravity, multiple or changing
>gravities, redefined materials, sky hooks, ultrastrong structures, etc.)
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
If energy, then OK build energy. If matter, then OK build matter. If both,
then OK, build both together. BUT DO BUILD! WE LIVE IN A PLACE CALLED, EARTH!
Fantasy is not enough for the NEEDS of shelter for people. Eventually, some
of the work SHOULD lead to facilities that improve the lot of humanity. JUST
leaving it at the BASIC level is not enough. The BASIC level is most important
to SUGGEST possibilities of APPLICATION. WE are ALMOST looking at the differ-
ence between art and a PURELY art-driven architecture---that is NOT built.
As long as we know what we are considering, then OK. But do not tell me
art IS architecture, and architecture IS art. At best, the two are done
together. At lease, architecture is best done artfully.
>My argument still holds however that if you cannot create a space with a
>digital model that matches perceptually with the exact real space, then
>there is no way to tell if ANY digital space is what you believed it
>was. (From this argument there is a quick slide downhill into the
>rhetoric of what is truely real, so I am standing on somewhat shakey
>ground, but I hope you see my point.) I was mostly trying to show that
>there is still a long way to go before we can trust what we see in a HMD
>to be what we thought it was that we saw. This as opposed to the "real"
>world where we take for granted that what we see is actually what we saw.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
C'mon! The REAL world CAN be virtual reality. The REAL world CAN be
actual reality. Obviously, there MAY or MAY NOT be a connection between
them. That's OK. If MODELS in virtual reality are used to simulate
actual reality, then it's only a means to an end. Most models used
in design represent or provide a discrepancy between the IDEA coming
from a DESIGN PROCESS and the actual BUILDING of the idea. That is OK too.
>As for the application of this technology, if we assume a completely
>dematerialized architecture, then there will be no need to judge what we
>have seen since there will be no time at which it will be scrutinized in
>any form other than the digital form. The only headace comes when you
?
|Exactly! Right! Good!
>add a new HMD to the system which has different optics and drivers, and
>suddenly the digital space is different than before... Standards hell
>seems to be fast approaching...
>Thanks for the discussion, take care-
?
|No problem. I enjoyed it. Howard
>Rick
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Richard W. Zobel rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Virtual Environments Laboratory rwzobel@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>North Carolina State University
>School of Design
>Box 7701, Brooks Hall [voice] (919) 515-7341
>Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7701 [ FAX ] (919) 515-7330
>----------------------------------------------------------------------